LUCAS COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE DESIGNATION G-4801-Cl-0202402349-000 TO: Bernie Quilter, Clerk of Courts CASE NO. Judge Michael R. Goulding JUDGE, The following type of ease is being filed: Professional Malpractice Legal Malpractice (L) Medical Malpractice (M) Product Liability (B) Other Tort (C) By submitting the complaint, with the signature of the Attorney, the Attomey Workers’ Compensation affirms that the name of person with State Funded (D) settlement authority and his/her direct, oC Self Insured (K) phone number will be provided upon Fequest to a party or counsel in this matter ther Civil Commercial Docket Consumer Fraud (NL_]Forfeiture [Appropriation (P) [5] Court Ordered )Other Civil (H) [_JCertificate of Title [|Copyright Infringement (W) This case was previously dismissed pursuant to CIVIL RULE 41 and is to be assigned to Judge __ » the original Judge at the time of dismissal. The previously filed case number was CI This case is a civil forfeiture case with a criminal case currently pending. The pending case number is, , assigned to Judge This case is a Declaratory Judgment case with a personal injury or related case currently pending. The pending case number is __, assigned to Judge This case is to be reviewed for consolidation in accordance with Local Rule 5.02 as a companion or related case. This designation sheet will be sent by the Clerk of Courts to the newly assigned Judge for review with the Judge who has the companion or related case with the lowest case number. The Judge who would receive the consolidated case may accept or deny consolidation of the case. Both Judges will sign this designation sheet to indicate the action taken. If the Judge with the lowest case number agrees to accept, the reassignment of the case by the Administration Judge shall be processed. If there is a disagreement between the Judges regarding consolidation, the matter may be referred to the Administrative Judge. Related/companion case number, Assigned Judge, a ApproveIDeny —=—=—=—=~S~*~S~S~*«~i ate Approve/Deny ———SSSC«éOte Attorney Fred M. Bean 0086758) ‘Address “SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEES LAWFIRM 25825 Science Telephone (216) 201-4744 Suite 200 Beachwood, OW #4122EFILED LUCAS COUNTY 5/8/2024 9:46 AM COMMON PLEAS COURT BERNIE QUILTER, CLERK EFILE ID: 109824 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO ELIZABETH HARRIS ) CASENO. G-4801-C1-0202402349-000 3217 Cambridge Street ) Toledo, Ohio 43610 ) JUDGE: Judge Michael R. Goulding ) Plaintiff, ) ) v ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ’ ) AND ‘ATEMENT CITY OF TOLEDO ) 640 Jackson Street ) Jury Demand Endorsed Herein Toledo, Ohio 43604 ) ) -and- ) ) ISAAC MILES ) In official and personal capacity ) 941 Carver Boulevard ) Toledo, Ohio 43607 ) ) Defendants. ) Plaintiff, Elizabeth Harris, by and through undersigned counsel, states and avers the following for the Complaint against the Defendants: PARTIES AND VENU! 1. Harris is a resident of the City of Toledo, County of Lucas, State of Ohio. 2. Atall times herein, Harris was acting in the course and scope of her employment. 3. The City of Toledo (“Toledo”) is a political subdivision that does business at 640 Jackson Street, Toledo, Ohio 43604. 4, Toledo is, and at all times herein, was an employer within the meaning of R.C. § 4112.01 et seq. 5. Isaac Miles is a resident of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio,10. ul 20. 21 ned, an individual who was a manager and/or supervisor at Toledo who acted directly or indirectly in the interest of Toledo. All of the material events alleged in this Complaint occurred in Lucas County, Ohio, Therefore, personal jurisdiction is proper over Defendant pursuant to R.C. 2307.382(A)(1) and (4). Venue is proper pursuant to Civ. R. 3(C)(3) and (6). This Court is a court of general jurisdiction over the claims presented herein, including all subject matters of this Complaint. Within two years of the conduct alleged below, Harris filed Charges of Discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”), Charge No. TOLE2(002205)09282023, against Defendant Miles (“Harris OCRC Charge”), On or about March 21, 2024, the OCRC issued a N of Right to Sue letter to Harris regarding the Charges of Discrimination brought in the Harris OCRC Charge. Harris has properly exhausted her administrative remedies pursuant to R.C. § 4112.052. FACTS Harris is a former employee of Toledo. Harris was hired by Toledo on or about July 25, 2022. Harris was employed by Toledo in the position of Violence Interrupter. Harris is female, During her employment with Toledo, Harris worked with Isaac Miles. Miles is male. Miles was Harris’s supervisor. In or about February 2023, Miles began sexually harassing Harris,22, 23, 24, 25, 26. 21, 28, 29, 30. 31 32. 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Atall times when Miles was sexually harassing Harris, he was acting outside the course and scope of his employment, so as to negate any immunity under R.C. § 2744(A)(6)(a). Alternatively, at all times when Miles was sexually harassing Harris, he acted within the scope of his employment, but with a malicious purpose, in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner, so as to negate any immunity per R.C. § 2744(A)(6)(b). In or about February 2023, Miles returned to work after having undergone a vasectomy procedure, In or about February 2023, Miles called Harris into his office and requested that Harris apply Neosporin ointment to his testicles (“Request to Touch Testicles”) ‘The Request to Touch Testicles was based on Harris's gender, The Request to Touch Testicles was unwanted by Harris. Harris opposed the Request to Touch Testicles. Harris was embarrassed by the Request to Touch Testicles Harris was offended by the Request to Touch Testicles, ‘A reasonable person would consider the Request to Touch Testicles to be offensive. ‘The Request to Touch Testicles was severe, A reasonable person would consider the Request to Touch Testicles to be severe, The Request to Touch Testicles was pervasive, ‘A reasonable person would consider the Request to Touch Testicles to be pervasive. The Request to Touch Testicles constituted harassment. The Request to Touch Testicles created a hostile work environment based on gender. The Request to Touch Testicles caused Harris emotional distress. ‘The Request to Touch Tes les is intolerable in a civilized society.40. 4l 42, 43, 44, 45, 46. 41. 48. 49. 30, 31 Following the Request to Touch Testicles, Harris promptly rejected the Request to Touch Testicles. Following Harris’s refusal of the Request to Touch Testicles, Miles continued to request that Harris touch his testicles, Following Harris’s refusal of the Request to Touch Testicles, Miles continued to request that Harris apply ointment to his testictes. Following Harris’s refusal of the Request to Touch Testicles, Miles exploited his position as Harris's supervisor tp coerce Harris into touching his testicles. Following Harris's refusal of the Request to Touch Testicles, Miles told Harris that she should apply the Neosporin ointment to his testicles because Harris's other coworkers and supervisors were “against her” and Miles was “the only [Toledo employee] who was fighting for [her].”” (“First Quid Pro Quo”). In doing the First Quid Pro Quo, Miles suggested that Harris would lose her employment with Toledo if she refused to apply Neosporin ointment to Miles’s testicles, In doing the First Quid Pro Quo, Miles suggested that Harris would lose her employment with Toledo if she refused to touch Mile’s testicles In doing the First Quid Pro Quo, Miles suggested that if Harris agreed to apply Neosporin ointment to his testicles, he could ensure Harris’s continued employment with Toledo, In doing the First Quid Pro Quo, Miles suggested that if Harris agreed to touch his testicles, he could ensure Harris's continued employment with Toledo, ‘The First Quid Pro Quo was based on Harris's gender. The First Quid Pro Quo was unwanted by Harti, Harris was embarrassed by the First Quid Pro Quo,52, 53, 34, 55. 36. 37, 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64, 65. 66. 67. 68. Harris was offended by the First Quid Pro Quo. A reasonable person would consider the First Quid Pro Quo to be offensive. The First Quid Pro Quo was severe. A reasonable person would consider the First Quid Pro Quo to be severe. The First Quid Pro Quo was pervasive. A reasonable person would consider the First Quid Pro Quo to be pervasive. ‘The First Quid Pro Quo constituted harassment. ‘The First Quid Pro Quo created a hostile work environment based on gender. The First Quid Pro Quo caused Harris emotional distress. The First Quid Pro Quo is intolerable in a civilized society. Harris felt she had no choice but to honor Miles’s Request to Touch Testicles. Following the First Quid Pro Quo, Hartis informed Christopher McIntyre of the Request to Touch Testicles and the First Quid Pro Quo (“First Report of Sexual Harassment”), Asa result of the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Toledo was on notice of the Request to Touch Testicles, Asa result of the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Toledo was on notice of the First Quid Pro Quo. As a result of the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Toledo was on notice of the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing from Miles. In response to the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants conducted no investigation. By failing to investigate the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants ratified Miles’ conduct.69, 70. 1 nR. 73, 14, 75. 76. 71. 78. 79, 80, 81 By failing to investigate the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Toledo allowed Miles” conduct to continue. Defendants willfully failed to investigate the First Report of Sexual Harassment. Defendants intentionally failed to investigate the First Report of Sexual Harassment. In response to the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the Request to Touch Testicles. In response to the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the First Quid Pro Quo. In response to the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing, In response to the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not tell Harris why they declined to correct the Request to Touch Testicle. In response to the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not tell Harris why they declined to correct the First Quid Pro Quo. In response to the First Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not tell Harris why they declined to correct the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing. On or about February 20, 2023, Miles informed Harris that he would be driving her home from work that day. On or about February 20, 2023, jiles demanded that he drive Harris home from work that day. Paragraphs 78 and 79 will be referred to collectively as the “Demand to Drive Home.” Before the Demand to Drive Home, Harris had never been driven home from work by Miles.82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, a 92. 93 94, 95 96. 97. 98. 99. Before the Demand to Drive Home, Harris had not planned to be driven home from work by Miles. Before the Demand to Drive Home, Harris had not agreed to be driven home from work by Miles. When Miles and Harris arrived at Harris's home on or about February 20, 2023, Miles forcibly kissed Harris without her consent (“Forced Kiss”), Miles made the Demand to Drive Home so that he could do the Forced Kiss. Miles did the Forced Kiss without Harris's consent. Miles did the Forced Kiss intentionally. Miles did the Forced Kiss willfully. The Forced Kiss was unwanted by Harris. Harris opposed the Forced Kiss. Harris was embarrassed by the Forced Kiss. Harris was offended by the Forced Kiss. A reasonable person would consider the Forced Kiss to be offensive. The Forced Kiss was severe. ‘A reasonable person would consider the Forced Kiss to be severe. ‘The Forced Kiss was pervasive. A reasonable person would consider the Forced Kiss to be pervasive. The Forced Kiss constituted harassment. ‘The Forced Kiss constituted assault. 100. The Forced Kiss caused Harris emotional distress. 101 ‘The Forced Kiss is intolerable in a civilized society.102. 103. 104, 105. 106, 107, 108, 109, 110. Mi 12, 13. na, 116. 117, 118, 119. 120. On or about February 20, 2023, following the Forced Kiss, Miles proposed that Harris enter a“sister-wife” relationship with Miles and the mother of his children, On or about February 20, 2023, following the Forced Kiss, Miles proposed that Harris enter ‘a sexual relationship with Miles and the mother of his children. On or about February 20, 2023, following the Forced Kiss, Miles proposed that Harris have sexual relations with Miles and the mother of his children. On or about February 20, 2023, following the Forced Kiss, Miles proposed that Harris have sexual intercourse with Miles and the mother of his children. Paragraphs 102 to 105 will be referred to collectively as the “Sexual Propositions.” ‘The Sexual Propositions were based on Harris's gender. The Sexual Propositions were unwanted by Harris Harris opposed the Sexual Propositions, Harris was embarrassed by the Sexual Propositions Harris was offended by the Sexual Propositions, A reasonable person would consider the Sexual Propositions to be offensive. ‘The Sexual Propositions were severe. A reasonable person would consider the Sexual Propositions to be severe. 5. The Sexual Propositions were pervasive. A reasonable person would consider the Sexual Propositions to be pervasive. ‘The Sexual Propositions constituted harassment, ‘The Sexual Propositions created a hostile work environment based on gender. ‘The Sexual Propositions caused Harris emotional distress, ‘The Sexual Propositions are intolerable in a civilized society.121 122, 123, 124. 125 126. 127. 128. 129, 130. 131. 132, 133, 134. 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, In or about March 2023, Miles told Harris that Harris would lose her job with Toledo if she refused to perform oral sex on Miles (“Second Quid Pro Quo”). In doing the Second Quid Pro Quo, Miles exploited his position as Harris's supervisor to coerce Harris into giving him oral sex, From March 2023 to July 2023, Miles used the threat of termination identified in the Second Quid Pro Quo to coerce Harris into giving him oral sex on at least two occasions. The Second Quid Pro Quo was based on Harris's gender. The Second Quid Pro Quo was unwanted by Hattis. Harris was embarrassed by the Second Quid Pro Quo. Harris was offended by the Second Quid Pro Quo. A reasonable person would consider the Second Quid Pro Quo to be offensive. ‘The Second Quid Pro Quo was severe. ‘A reasonable person would consider the Second Quid Pro Quo to be severe. ‘The Second Quid Pro Quo was pervasive. ‘A reasonable person would consider the Second Quid Pro Quo to be pervasive. Alternatively, the Second Quid Pro Quo is permitted by Defendants. The Second Quid Pro Quo constituted harassment. ‘The Second Quid Pro Quo created a hostile work environment based on gender. ‘The Second Quid Pro Quo caused Harris emotional distress. The Second Quid Pro Quo is intolerable in a civilized society. Harris felt she had no choice but to submit to Miles’s Second Quid Pro Quo, On or about July 6, 2023, Harris submitted several applications for positions in different departments within the Toledo employment system (“July Transfer Applications”)140. M41. 142, 143, 144. 145, 146. 147. 148, 149, 150. 151 Harris submitted the July Transfer Applications so that she would no longer have to work with Miles Harris submitted the July Transfer Applications to escape the sexual harassment she was experiencing from Miles. When Harris submitted the July Transfer Applications, Harris was qualified for each job she applied for. On or about July 13, 2023, Toledo informed Harris that she had not been selected for any of the positions for which she applied through the July Transfer Applications (“Failure to Promote”) Upon information and belief, Miles interfered with Harris's July Transfer Applications. Upon information and belief, Miles influenced Toledo's decision to do the Failure to Promote. On or about July 24, 2023, Harris reported the sexual harassment she was experiencing from Miles to Toledo's Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI Office”). On or about July 24, 2023, Harris reported the sexual harassment she was experiencing from Miles to Toledo’s Human Resources Director, Marquita Chong Paragraphs 194 and 195 will be referred to collectively as the “Second Report of Sexual Harassment.” ‘As a result of the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Toledo was on notice of the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing from Miles. ‘The Second Report of Sexual Harassment reported a significant workplace issue or event. Pursuant to Toledo’s policies, the Second Report of Sexual Harassment should be investigated 10152. 154, 157. 158. 139, 160. 161. 162. 163. In response to the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants conducted no investigation. By failing to investigate the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants ratified Miles’s conduct, By failing to investigate the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants allowed Mi s conduct to continue, Defendants willfully failed to investigate the Second Report of Sexual Harassment. . Defendants intentionally failed to investigate the Second Report of Sexual Harassment. In response to the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the First Quid Pro Quo. In response to the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the Second Quid Pro Quo. In response to the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the Sexual Propositions. In response to the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing from Miles. In response to the Second Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not tell Harris why they declined to correct the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing from Miles, On or about July 28, 2023, Miles requested that Harris come to the Toledo office at which Harris and Miles worked. On or about July 28, 2023, when Harris arrived at the office, Miles exposed his erect penis to Harris (“Penis Exposure”). u164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181 182. 183, When Miles did the Penis Exposure, Miles and Harris were the only two Toledo employees in the Toledo office space. When Miles did the Penis Exposure, he was suggesting to Harris that he wanted her to perform oral sex on him When Miles did the Penis Exposure, he was reiterating the Second Quid Pro Quo. Miles did the Penis Exposure without Harris's consent, Miles did the Penis Exposure intentionally. Miles did the Penis Exposure willfully. The Penis Exposure was unwanted by Harris. Harris opposed the Penis Exposure. Harris was embarrassed by the Penis Exposure. Harris was offended by the Penis Exposure. ‘A reasonable person would consider the Penis Exposure to be offensive, The Penis Exposure was severe. ‘A reasonable person would consider the Penis Exposure to be severe. ‘The Penis Exposure was pervasive. A reasonable person would consider the Penis Exposure to be pervasive. ‘The Penis Exposure constituted harassment. The Penis Exposure constituted assault The Pe Exposure caused Harris emotional distress. ‘The Penis Exposure is intolerable in a civilized society. Following the Penis Exposure, Harris left the Toledo office space.184. 185, 186. 187. 188. 189, 190, 191 192, 193. 194, 195. 196. 197. 198, 199, 200, 201 On Harris’s way out of the office following the Penis Exposure, Miles told Harris that her “ass had grown bigger” (“Sexually Harassing Comment”). ‘The Sexually Harassing Comment was based on Harris's gender. ‘The Sexually Harassing Comment was unwanted by Harris. Harris opposed the Sexually Harassing Comment, Harris was embarrassed by the Sexually Harassing Comment. Harris was offended by the Sexually Harassing Comment, A reasonable person would consider the Sexually Harassing Comment to be offensive. ‘The Sexually Harassing Comment was severe. A reasonable person would consider the Sexually Harassing Comment to be severe. ‘The Sexually Harassing Comment was pervasive. A reasonable person would consider the Sexually Harassing Comment to be pervasive. ‘The Sexually Harassing Comment constituted harassment, The Sexually Harassing Comment created a hostile work environment based on gender. ‘The Sexually Harassing Comment caused Harris emotional distress ‘The Sexually Harassing Comment is intolerable in a civilized society. ‘Approximately thirty minutes after the Sexually Harassing Comment, Harris re-entered the Toledo office space to speak to Miles. When Harris re-entered the office space, Miles forcefully grabbed Harris and proceeded to drag her towards Miles’s personal office space within the Toledo office space (“Assault”) Miles, when assaulting Harris, acted with a malicious purpose, in bad faith or in a wanton or reckless manner, so as to negate any claim for immunity per R.C. § 2744(A)(6)(b).202, 203 204, 205 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 2u 212. 214, 215, 216. 217. 218, 219, 220. Miles, when assaulting Harris, acted in a manner manifestly outside the scope of his employment or official responsibilities, so as to negate any immunity per RC. § 2744(A\(O)(@). Miles did the Assault without Harris's consent. Miles did the Assault against Harris's will. Miles did the Assault intentionally. Miles did the Assault willfully. The Assault was unwanted by Harti. Harris opposed the Assault. Harris was offended by the Assault. A reasonable person would consider the Assault to be offensive. The Assault was severe. ‘A reasonable person would consider the Assault to be severe. . The Assault was pervasive. A reasonable person would consider the Assault to be pervasive. The Assault constituted harassment, The Assault constituted assault. The Assault caused Harris emotional distress. ‘The Assault is intolerable in a civilized society. While the Assault was ongoing, Harris began to scream “NO! NO!” in an attempt to prevent the Assault, While the Assault was ongoing, Harris began to scream “NO! NO!” in an attempt to stop the Assault, 4221. 222. 223. 224. 225 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231. 232. 233, While the Assault was ongoing, Harris attempted to physically remove herself from Miles’ grasp in an attempt to prevent the Assault. While the Assault was ongoing, Harris attempted to physically remove herself from Miles’ grasp in an attempt to stop the Assault. Paragraphs 220 to 222 will be referred to collectively as the “Attempt to Prevent Assault.” When Harris did the Attempt to Prevent Assault, she revoked any coerced consent to sexual relations with Miles that may have previously existed. While the Assault was ongoing, but after the Attempt to Prevent Assault, Harris broke free from Miles’ grasp and fled to the exit of the Toledo office space. After Harris broke free from Miles’s Assault, Miles pleaded with Harris to refrain from reporting Miles's Assault and ongoing sexual harassment of Harris to Toledo personnel. After Harris broke free from Miles’s Assault and fled from the Toledo office space where the Assault occurred, Harris encountered Christopher Matthews. Matthews is male, Matthews was a supervisor. When Harris encountered Matthews, Harris informed Matthews of the Assault and ongoing sexual harassment she was experiencing from Miles (“Third Report of Sexual Harassment”). In response to the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Matthews failed to take prompt remedial action In response to the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Matthew told Harris, “Bitch, I didn’t see [the Assault]. It didn’t happen!” In response to the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants conducted no234, 235. 236. 237. 238, 239, 240, 241 242, 243 244, 245. 246. By failing to investigate the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants ratified Miles’s conduct. By failing to investigate the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants allowed Miles’s, conduct to continue. Defendants willfully failed to investigate the Third Report of Sexual Harassment. Defendants intentionally failed to investigate the Third Report of Sexual Harassment In response to the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the Assault In response to the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing from Miles. In response to the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not tell Harris why they declined to correct the Assault. In response to the Third Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not tell Harris why they declined to correct the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing from Miles, On or about July 28, 2023, Harris reported Miles’s Assault and ongoing sexual harassment of Harris to Lamishyia Hudson (“Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment”). Hudson was Harris's supervisor. Hudson is a Commissioner for Toledo. In response to the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Hudson failed to take prompt remedial action. In response to the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Hudson simply provided Harris with the contact information for a therapist's office (“Therapist Information”). 16247. 248, 249, 250. 251. 252, 283 284, 285. 256, 287. 258. By sharing the Therapist Information, Hudson acknowledged the emotional distress Harris had experienced from the Assault. By sharing the Therapist Information, Hudson acknowledged the emotional distress Harris was experiencing from Miles’s ongoing sexual harassment of Harris, In response to the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants conducted no investigation By failing to investigate the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants ratified Miles’s conduct. By failing to investigate the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants allowed Miles’s conduct to continue. Defendants willfully failed to investigate the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment. Defendants intentionally failed to investigate the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment. In response to the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the Assault, In response to the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not correct the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing from Miles. In response to the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not tell Harris why they declined to correct the Assault. In response to the Fourth Report of Sexual Harassment, Defendants did not tell Harris why they declined to correct the sexual harassment Harris was experiencing from Miles. Defendants terminated Harris's employment on August 4, 2023 (“Termination”).259, 260. 261. 262. 263, 264, 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. an. 272, Defendants” stated basis for termination was that Harris had “falsified [doctor's] notes to Justify” Harris’s absences from work between July 7, 2023, and July 11, 2023 (“Stated Basis for Termination”). The Stated Basis for Termination was based on false information The Stated Basis for Termination has no basis in fact. ‘The Stated Basis for Termination did not actually motivate Defendants’ decision to terminate Harris’s employment. ‘The Stated Basis for Termination was insufficient to motivate the termination of Harris's employment. ‘The Stated Basis for Termination was pretext to terminate Harris's employment. Defendants’ termination of Harris's employment was retaliation for her Reports of Sexual Harassment. Defendants terminated Harris's employment because of Harris's gender. By terminating Harris’s employment, Defendants made it less likely for a reasonable employee to make a report or oppose conduct like sexual harassment. By terminating Harris's employment, Defendants made it less likely for a reasonable employee to make a report or oppose conduct like the Assault. ‘The Termination constitutes retaliation. ‘The Termination constitutes gender discrimination. ‘There was a causal connection between Harris's gender and the Termination ‘There was a causal connection between Harris's Reports of Sexual Harassment and the ‘Termination,213. 274, 215, 276. 277. 278, 279. 280. 281 As a result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Harris has suffered, and will continue to suffer, pecuniary harm. ‘Asa result of Defendants’ unlawful acts, Harris has suffered, and will continue to suffer, ‘emotional distress. COUNT I: GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 4112.01 et sea. ‘(Against Toledo Only Harris restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated herein. Defendants took adverse employment actions against Harris based on Harris's gender. Defendants violated R.C. § 4112.02(A) when they took adverse employment actions against Harris based on Harris's gender. Defendants violated R.C. § 4112.02(A) when they engaged in disparate treatment based on Harris's gender. Harris suffered damages as a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct based on Harris's gender. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ gender-based conduct, Harris has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages. COUNT II: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON THE BASIS OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF R.C.§ 4112.01 et seq. (Against Toledo Only) Harris restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated herein. 19282. Defendants violated R.C. § 4222.02(A) when they created a hostile work environment based on Harris's gender. 283. Harris suffered damages as a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct based on the gender hostile work environment 284, Asa direct and proximate result of the gender hostile work environment, Harris has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages. 285. In creating a hostile work environment based on gender, Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of Harris COUNT III; QUID PRO QUO SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF R.C.§ 4112.01 et sea. (Against Toledo Only) 286, Harris restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully restated herei 287. Asa female, Harris is a member of a protected class under R.C. § 4112.02. 288. During her employment, Harris was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment in the form of sexual advances or requests for sexual favors by her/his supervisor, Miles. 289. ‘The harassment against Harris was based on her gender. 290. Harris's submission to the unwelcome sexual advances by Miles was an express ot implied condition for receiving job benefits and/or continued employment. 291. Harris rejected Miles’s acts of sexual harassment. 292. Toledo knew or should have known about Miles’s sexual advances towards Harris. 293. Toledo failed to remedy Miles’s misconduct or stop him from continued acts of sexual harassment against Harris. 20294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. COUN) ‘As a direct and proximate result of Toledo's conduct, Harris suffered and will continue to suffer damages. IV: CIVIL ACTION FOR CRIMINAL ACTS - GROSS SEXUAL IMPOSITION (Against Defendant Miles) Harris restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint as though it were fully restated herein, Miles committed the criminal act of gross sexual imposition as defined by R.C. 2907.05 when he had sexual contact with Harris, who was not his spouse when he purposely compelled Harris to submit by force or threats of force. Under R.C. § 2307.60(A)(1), “anyone inured in person or property by a criminal act has, and may recover full damages in a civil action,” including attorneys" fees and punitive damages. ‘As a direct and proximate result of Miles’s conduct, Harris has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages. Miiles’s acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of substantial sanction to punish and deter Miles and others from engaging in this type of unlawful conduct. L_ ACTION FOR CRIMINAL ACTS ~ SEXUAL BATTERY ‘(Against Defendant Miles) COUNT V: Harris restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint as though it were fully restated herein, Miles committed the criminal act of Sexual Battery as defined by R.C. § 2907.03 when he engaged in sexual conduct with Harris, who was not his spouse, when he knowingly coerced Harris to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution, 2302, 303. 304, 305, 306. 307, 308, 309. 310. In the alternative, Miles committed the criminal act of Sexual Battery as defined by R.C. § + 2907.03 when he engaged in sexual conduct with O’Keefe, who was not his spouse, when he knew that Harris's ability to appraise the nature of or control her own conduct was substantially impaired. Under R.C. § 2307.60(A)(1), “anyone inured in person or property by a criminal act has, and may recover full damages in a civil action,” including attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Asa direct and proximate result of the Miles’s conduct, Harris has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages, Miles’s acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of substantial sanction to punish and deter Miles and others from engaging in this type of unlawful conduct, COUNT VI: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 4112.02(1) {Against All Defendants) Harris restates each and every prior paragraph of this complaint, as if it were fully restated herein ‘As a result of the Defendant’s discriminatory conduct described above, Harris complained about the perceived gender discrimination Harris was experiencing. As a result of the Defendant’s discriminatory conduct described above, Hartis complained about the perceived sexual harassment Harris was experiencing, As a direct and proximate result to Harris’s reporting of unlawful discrimination and harassment to Defendants, Defendants took adverse employment actions against Harris. As a direct and proximate result to Harris’s reporting of unlawful discrimination and harassment to Defendants, Defendants took adverse actions against Harris 22Bil. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316, 317, 318, 319, 320. 321 Pursuant to R.C. §4112.02(1), it is an unlawful discriminatory practice “to discriminate in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice defined in this section... Asa direct and proximate result of Defendants’ retaliatory conduct against and termination of Harris's employment, Harris suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages. In retaliating against Harris, Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to the rights of Harris. COUNT VII: INTE] INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Harris restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint as though it were fully restated herein, Harris suffered serious emotional distress as a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, Defendants’ actions as alleged above were so extreme and outrageous that no reasonable person could be expected to endure them. Defendants intended to cause Harris serious emotional distress. Alterna ely, Defendants recklessly caused Harris serious emotional distress. ‘As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Harris has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages, Miles’s acts were willful, egregious, malicious, and worthy of substantial sanction to punish and deter Harris and others from engaging in this type of unlawful conduct. 23DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Elizabeth Harris demands from Defendants the following: (a) Issue an order requiring Toledo to restore Harris to one of the positions to which Harris was entitled by virtue of Harris's application and qualifications, and expunge Harris's personnel file of all negative documentation; (b) An award against each Defendant of compensatory and monetary damagés to compensate Harris for physical injury, physical sickness, lost wages, emotional distress, and other consequential damages, in an amount in excess of $25,000 per claim to be proven at trial; (©) An award of punitive damages against one or more Defendants in an amount in excess of $25,000, as allowed under law; (d) An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs for Harris’s claims as allowable under law; (©) An award of the taxable costs of this action; and (®) An award of such other relief as this Court may deem necessary and proper. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Fred M_ Bean Fred M. Bean (0086756) SPITZ, THE EMPLOVEE’S LAW FIRM 25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff Elizabeth Harris 24JURY DEMAND Plaintiff Elizabeth Harris demands a trial by jury by the maximum number of jurors permitted. ds/ Fred M. Bean Fred M. Bean (0086756) SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE’S Law FIRM 25